Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Ernest Gublis forehand (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=456474)

ac10splyr 03-03-2013 11:35 AM

Ernest Gublis forehand
 
What the hell is up with gublis' forehand. Watching the delray and dont remember his off hand being sooooo ugly....any thoughts

Sid_Vicious 03-03-2013 11:50 AM

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449539

dominikk1985 03-03-2013 11:50 AM

it's the weed

http://tennis.si.com/2013/02/13/erne...dam-marijuana/

JAY1 03-03-2013 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac10splyr (Post 7248669)
What the hell is up with gublis' forehand. Watching the delray and dont remember his off hand being sooooo ugly....any thoughts

Does it work though?

always_crosscourt 03-03-2013 12:14 PM

Gulbis's forehand may be ugly and unconventional, but he seems to get pace and spin with it.

The commentators of Delray Beach have done nothing but make fun of it.

I wonder if the American fixation with making all of their players carbon copies of each other, and ironing out all idiosyncrasies to technique (which may produce great or at least different results) is hurting them in the long run.

Lavs 03-03-2013 12:18 PM

when it works it can not be ugly.. joke :)
seriously Ernie takes the best of it nowadays.. and at the moment he is 1 set behind the Delray title being qualifier(!)

TennisCJC 03-04-2013 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt (Post 7248743)
Gulbis's forehand may be ugly and unconventional, but he seems to get pace and spin with it.

The commentators of Delray Beach have done nothing but make fun of it.

I wonder if the American fixation with making all of their players carbon copies of each other, and ironing out all idiosyncrasies to technique (which may produce great or at least different results) is hurting them in the long run.

Huh? "American fixation with making all of their players carbon copies" - I'm American and I don't see your point.

Gulbis' forehand is ugly and not all that good for an ATP pro. Do you really believe he has a high quality forehand for an ATP pro? To me, it is no where as near as good as the rest of his game and needs work. It is an enourmous swing and he makes more unforced errors on the forehand. He also does not get the depth and consistency that he gets on his backhand. I think the commentators were amused at his forehand because it is butt ugly and not very good.

Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick, Andre Agassi, Michael Chang and many other Americans all have very different games. Chang dropped the racket head early on his 2 HBH while Agassi did not. Sampras lead back with the elbow and kept his racket head pointing forward on his FH while Courier kept the racket in front on his FH. Agassi has compact simple swings and could not volley very well while Sampras had longer swings and had an excellent volley. Lots of differences to those that are not biased.

MindoverMatter 03-04-2013 06:06 AM

I don't know what matches you've been watching, but that forehand is ridiculously powerful and he hasn't made many errors in his matches. He's had the forehand for at least 2 years.

djarvik 03-04-2013 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MindoverMatter (Post 7250028)
I don't know what matches you've been watching, but that forehand is ridiculously powerful and he hasn't made many errors in his matches. He's had the forehand for at least 2 years.


Indeed.

10char

cknobman 03-04-2013 06:27 AM

The matches I was watching this weekend seemed to show the Gulbis forehand landing short in the service box quite often.

Sure it worked for him and he won a title, but that forehand will be exposed for the weakness it is when he meets one of the big boys.

A hard hitter like Berdych or Tsonga will create real problems for the Gulbis forehand as his setup and motion require too much time.

A solid baseliner that can retrieve all day like Ferrer, Djokovic, and Nadal will get hit to the Gulbis forehand until it breaks down. So much motion in it that its going to break first over the players with better technique.

dominikk1985 03-04-2013 06:44 AM

His FH motion is really whippy and can create a lot of racket head speed because there is a lot of separation. also very nice "pat the dog" motion.

but it also takes a lot of time and is prone to timing issues which can lead to tons of errors. the motion is not bad per se but IMO it is too complicated to be consistent.

always_crosscourt 03-04-2013 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TennisCJC (Post 7249987)
Huh? "American fixation with making all of their players carbon copies" - I'm American and I don't see your point.

Gulbis' forehand is ugly and not all that good for an ATP pro. Do you really believe he has a high quality forehand for an ATP pro? To me, it is no where as near as good as the rest of his game and needs work. It is an enourmous swing and he makes more unforced errors on the forehand. He also does not get the depth and consistency that he gets on his backhand. I think the commentators were amused at his forehand because it is butt ugly and not very good.

Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick, Andre Agassi, Michael Chang and many other Americans all have very different games. Chang dropped the racket head early on his 2 HBH while Agassi did not. Sampras lead back with the elbow and kept his racket head pointing forward on his FH while Courier kept the racket in front on his FH. Agassi has compact simple swings and could not volley very well while Sampras had longer swings and had an excellent volley. Lots of differences to those that are not biased.

And those were a good decade or longer ago.

Where are all the unique and successful American talents now?

They're all middle-of-the-road hard-courters with loopy forehands, big 1st serve, average movement, average net-play and cookie-cutter two-handed backhands.

TennisCJC 03-04-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt (Post 7250291)
And those were a good decade or longer ago.

Where are all the unique and successful American talents now?

They're all middle-of-the-road hard-courters with loopy forehands, big 1st serve, average movement, average net-play and cookie-cutter two-handed backhands.

The last 3 American's in the top 10 were Roddick, Isner, and Fish. Fish and Roddick play very differently - Fish has a great volley and top notch 2 handed backhand while Roddick depended on serve and forehand. Isner plays similarly to young Roddick when Roddick crushed the FH but this is the only way Isner can play due to his size 6'10" and limited movement.

The other 2 young Americans Ryan Harrison and Jack Sock both have 2 HBH's but Harrison is a very different player in that he has a tremendous kick serve and likes to attack. Jack Sock's FH is big but somewhat "loopy" while Harrison's FH is very aggressive and not so "loopy". Also, Harrison is an excellent athlete and mover.

Why are you so determined to bash American tennis? Are you from Latvia? Related to Gulbis? Yes, there isn't a young American at the moment that looks like the next number 1 but America is a big country and things can change fast.

Doubles 03-04-2013 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TennisCJC (Post 7250639)
The last 3 American's in the top 10 were Roddick, Isner, and Fish. Fish and Roddick play very differently - Fish has a great volley and top notch 2 handed backhand while Roddick depended on serve and forehand. Isner plays similarly to young Roddick when Roddick crushed the FH but this is the only way Isner can play due to his size 6'10" and limited movement.

The other 2 young Americans Ryan Harrison and Jack Sock both have 2 HBH's but Harrison is a very different player in that he has a tremendous kick serve and likes to attack. Jack Sock's FH is big but somewhat "loopy" while Harrison's FH is very aggressive and not so "loopy". Also, Harrison is an excellent athlete and mover.

Why are you so determined to bash American tennis? Are you from Latvia? Related to Gulbis? Yes, there isn't a young American at the moment that looks like the next number 1 but America is a big country and things can change fast.

What you seem to be overlooking is that if his forehand was so bad he would not have won Delray.

Gonzalito17 03-04-2013 02:30 PM

Gulbis has a darn good forehand, cracked many winners vs. Querrey, Haas and Vasselin all over the court, he also had some delicate drop shot winners off that wing. I really like Gulbis game right now and especially his fighting spirit, he had a fantastic tournament and overcame many treacherous moments, like 0-40, 0-4 down vs. Q, and set points down, Gulbis might be transforming before our eyes into an elite player, like Ferrer, Davydenko, Djokovic, Fed, Murray, overcame periods of underachievement to eventually become dominant monsters.

RogerRacket111 03-04-2013 02:36 PM

Its ugly. Ugly generally means not efficient and will break down or break some part of his body down.

boramiNYC 03-04-2013 02:51 PM

wouldn't go as far as to say transformation for winning one small title, but a great effort and result. and his fh looks unconventional but even as it is it's a tremendous shot. a few years ago watching querry debuting at US open from the courtside and he was hitting so much harder than anyone else but it seems gulbis fh is even harder.

Relinquis 03-04-2013 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerRacket111 (Post 7250827)
Its ugly. Ugly generally means not efficient and will break down or break some part of his body down.

i disagree with this assembly line mentality to tennis strokes. nearly all top 20 pro level strokes have variation and flair.

amarican tennis is so intertwined with this concept of standardisation and almost puritanical approach to perfection in technique that i wonder if the coaches are unintentionally eliminating important parts of a players technique in the name of efficiency or some puritanical concept of perfection.

An efficiency approach would have gotten rid of Nadal's buggywhip forehand, Gasquet's slingshot backhand and federer's squash shots before they had a chance to develop them into the weapons that have defined their careers. Would have cleansed away their character and their talent.

What happened to american individualism? Why should every US player be a USTA clone?

Nostradamus 03-04-2013 05:01 PM

Most screwed up shot in tennis. It is really odd because few years ago, he was hitting shot more normal traditional way

boramiNYC 03-04-2013 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relinquis (Post 7251116)
i disagree with this assembly line mentality to tennis strokes. nearly all top 20 pro level strokes have variation and flair*.

amarican tennis is so intertwined with this concept of standardisation and almost puritanical approach to perfection in technique that i wonder if the coaches are unintentionally eliminating important parts of a players technique in the name of efficiency or some puritanical concept of perfection.

An efficiency approach would have gotten rid of Nadal's buggywhip forehand, Gasquet's slingshot backhand and federer's squash shots before they had a chance to develop them into the weapons that have defined their careers.

What happened to american individualism? Why should every US player be a USTA clone?

many people involved in USTA think they are backed by science hence so much authority oftentimes. they don't see science only plays a small part in the whole aspect of the game and technique. my impression these days is Europeans have better attitude toward this end.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse